And I told you it was not the same structure and I told you why. Therefore, I will not answer it.
Re-phrase it to comply with the same structure and you won't need to ask my opinion -- it will be obvious. Which, I'm sure, is why you refuse to do so.
Here is a sentence with the exact same structure.
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
And here is the rebuttal to your expected "no it isn't" reply as well as an explanation of why it IS an individual right.
http://www.largo.org/literary.html
I'm done reading your posts as they bring nothing to the discussion.
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the secutity of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
A well-educated citizenry being necessary to the advancement of a modern society, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed
My sentence structure exactly matches the sentence structure of the second ammendment.
So please answer my question. In my rewording of the second ammendment, who can read and keep books? Please do not go off on tangents about regulating book buying and well stocked libraries. In your understanding of the English language, who can read books in the above sentence?
Re-phrase it to comply with the same structure and you won't need to ask my opinion -- it will be obvious. Which, I'm sure, is why you refuse to do so.
This is popularly known as "begging the question", or framing the question in a manner in which the desired answer is assumed. Her structure was the same as the 2nd A.: introductory clause, followed by operative clause. You wish it to be restructured to comply with the "collective right" interpretation: restrictive clause, followed by operative clause. So why don't you propose YOUR analogous wording?